Should same-sex marriages by legally recognized?

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by C Elegans

@Beowulf: You obviously have a full understanding of the scientific method and how studies are conducted and data are interpreted - do you have scientific training, or are just an extraordinarily knowledgeble layman?

Well I'm certainly a layman, I don't know about knowledgeable. I read a lot of science and philosophy, so that helps, but most of it is common sense (or, at least, logical). Apart from that, I just think 'Hmm, what would CE say?'


@Chanak - with regards to the pope's political influence: maybe where you're living, but not here. The Archbishop of Dublin helped write our bloody constitution, and his influence is still felt - ten years ago in Ireland, homosexuality (male only, for some reason ) was illegal

I agree with you about forcing churches to perform marriages they don't condone, but I think there's a wider question of which religion's ministers get to preform marriages and why. Again, I don't know about America, but here I believe only Catholic and Anglican priests have an automatic right to perform marriages - the rest have to go to a registry office, at least for the more ... banal... benefits.

[Chanak]

@Beowulf: Understood regarding some of the differences between where I am and where you are. However, you will find a high degree of variance amongst states here - even down to individual counties - in regards to these issues. For example, the state of Georgia passed some of the most severe anti-sodomy laws to be found throughout the United States...so severe that the law required two males living in the same household to keep separate sleeping arrangements in separate bedrooms. In a similar vein, Georgia's Cobb County - located close to the city of Atlanta - issued a public statement denouncing the "homosexual lifestyle," stating that homosexuals were not welcome in Cobb county. This happened as recently as the mid-90's. Of course this drew heavy criticism, but as far as I know, Cobb county - and the state of Georgia - still maintains their rigid anti-homosexual stance.

Now I'm not one to push stereotypes...but this is one instance where the shoe fits perfectly. If you're ever traveling on Interstate 75 through the state of Georgia, watch out for the stretch that takes you through Cobb county...it's one massive speed-trap. Seems like there's two county police officers for every three miles of interstate highway....and every one of them will address you as "boy," or "son." If you need to head into town off the interstate for fuel or food, avoid any restaurant sign that contains the words "Country Cooking." Just the same, don't even think about doing that on a Sunday...you might get arrested for not being in church that morning.

The laws are pretty fluid here regarding religiously sponsored marriages. Any minister from any sort of religious entity may perform a legally recognized marriage, as long as the proper documentation is submitted to the courthouse in the county the marriage was performed in.

[Gruntboy]

BTW< same sex marriages should "bi" legally recognised fable.

[Littiz]

Since your opinion on the issue is not based on science, that probablty won't make much difference to you. But just out of curiosity - what are your feelings in this regard based on? Religious belief? Common sense? Personal experience?

You tract things as if they were different in nature, while their nature is common: uncertainty.
As I stated, even science needs belief. You two keep ignoring it , but still. Belief is just moved a little aside.
Science keeps proposing models and theories, which unfailingly change as soon as our sphere of perception slightly changes.
What about people who believed in the Science of their times?
And mostly, what about the role of doubts and intuitions, which science itself needs to live?

As for your question : my opinions and my morality.. well, if a base exists, it's a combination of heart, science, perception, desire, taste, madness, everything that runs through my mind. I don't really see them as separate entities (no retoric here).

For the paragraph you quoted me, you can just replace 'sexual orientation' with 'healthy upbringing', and the point remains.

Let's assume (for a moment) that the cited studies are unfaulty. I repeat myself, I don't judge the results.
If you hit with your fist 100 kids, and then you prove me that they still grow as honest and generally good people, I still blame you for your action.
With the proper proportions, it's just what you perceive as "blamable", and what not.

Unless they all have the same reason for excluding themselves, then the impact that this has on the study is negated.

Again, I know that such studies are "as correct as currently possible".
But this "implication" of course, is another assumption.
I know it sounds like "forced" skepticism, but I only generalize the historical course of science.
First, different external reasons can be generated by a single aspect of the whole that we can't notice.
Then... I am a timid person and my first answer would be "no".
So in the opposite, NOT refusing the tests shows already a common behavior of the subjects.
Could similar "patterns", or similar processes' interactions in the mind lead to this? You don't know.
I can't provide better examples as I'm trying to talk about things currently out of our sphere of perception/calculability.
But the test is necessarily flawed. You're leaving out ALL the extremely timid, or the extremely scaried, or the extremely lazy! Many types won't be represented in the test.
Another example, won't the simple knowing of being tested influence the test?
You can never know if what you exclude is relevant: be the billions of individuals untested, the possible interactions, or whatever.
In truth, you don't even know what you are excluding, or which fonts of bias you are introducing.
They're only evident after you notice them.
And keep in mind that I'm not questioning its applicability to the majority of cases: it provides probably a currently "good enough" model for our purposes. As the "Mother Earth" model for gravity was enough for most uses, and still would be, if you think about it!!
(sorry for the out of topic once again, I'll stop now, positions seem clear )

Agreed, @CE, I'll start a thread soon then, it's really of interest for me!
"Hard Determinist" seems to fit, though I don't know what it precisely denotes.
I didn't study correlated philosophical theories, nor was I influenced by mechanicalist authors.
I formed this concept by myself, and mind you, I'm not proposing it as a true model.
Actually, I'd gladily forget it!
But my mind seems naturally inclined to follow it and schematize things this way...

[fable]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Ooh, what highly topical new item brought out this dusty old discussion?

It ain't dusty if it's fresh to anybody.

Same sex marriages have been on the books since, um, books began. They were recorded in the Christian church during the 14th C.

Long before that. St Bacchus and St Serge, both recognized in the Greek Orthodox Christian faith, were Roman soldiers in the 6th century CE who were also lovers. (A written account four hundred years later openly refers to the fact.) @Grunty, you'd know better than me about this: wasn't homosexuality in the ranks of the Roman army openly accepted, and possibly encouraged by the state?

Then, there's the celebrated same-sex union under the auspices of the GOC of the Byzantine Emperor Basil I and his lover, John, in the 9th century CE. It was internationally celebrated and written about in tones of official praise, and nobody dared to raise a voice against it. Religion and state were too close to permit that, and the Byzantine Empire at that point was an absolute regime.

But these are the recognized exceptions. Official policy was determined, not just in part by religious dogma (always referring back to Lot's big adventure in Sodom), but by the homophobia of those cultures in which Judaism, Christianity and Islam were formed.

@Littiz: I'd love to continue the science discussion with you, but Fable rules, so another time, another thread...just this short notion about assumption...

No, Buck does, @CE. I'm merely a humble mouthpiece, not fit to grace the earth that his bemired but blessed shoes trod each day. More seriously, the subject was fine. It was the rising flames and several complaints in my PM box that brought on the response. I'd like to see such a thread as Lititz and you have described, though. I've learned quite a bit from reading the debate in this one.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by fable
@Grunty, you'd know better than me about this: wasn't homosexuality in the ranks of Roman soldiers openly accepted, and possibly encouraged by the state?

It wasn't just in the army, but both the Greeks and Romans held vastly different views of sexuality than we do today. Marriage was still a function of social alliances, and married couples were expected to produce children, but sexual activity was considered a social activity.

Homosexual behaviour was accepted for both men and women, and penetration was symbolic of power. Men of higher social standing exerted their power by penetrating men and women of lower standing; the highest ranking male showed his status by being the penetrator rather than the penetrated.

Women were also allowed more sexual freedom, although they were still subordinate to men. With husbands serving in the Legions, many high-ranking women took other men, women and slaves as lovers. This was accepted so long as only her husband sired her children.

The ancient Greeks had a social custom of men taking adolescent boys as lovers, although there were social controls over these relationships. There was no penetration of the boy for instance. This was considered a rite of passage in Greek society.

All of this activity ceased and sexual attitudes changed with the advent of Christianity. The early Christians recognised that the best way to propagate their faith was to make more, so they discouraged homosexual activity and curbed fornication and extra-marital sex, which was promoted under the Romans.

[fable]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Women were also allowed more sexual freedom, although they were still subordinate to men. With husbands serving in the Legions, many high-ranking women took other men, women and slaves as lovers. This was accepted so long as only her husband sired her children.

But aren't you just speaking of the Ancient Roman upper class during the Empire period, @HLD? And there were definitely conservative elements that didn't agree with this. I think things weren't as uniform as, say, I Claudius and Robert Graves would have us believe.

The ancient Greeks had a social custom of men taking adolescent boys as lovers, although there were social controls over these relationships. There was no penetration of the boy for instance. This was considered a rite of passage in Greek society.

This is very hotly debated, and in any case, seems to be limited to a relatively small group of Greek philosopher-patricians during the century following the Peloponnesian War. Athenian mililtary power waned, and the culture turned inward. Our problem, as most scholars acknowledge, is trying to develop a broad-spectrum understanding of Greek mainland and island culture when most of the writings that survive come from the small group of Athenian philosopher/patricians. There is no surviving evidence, at least, outside of this literature, for a believe that such a custom was common to Greek culture at the time.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by fable
But aren't you just speaking of the Ancient Roman upper class during the Empire period, @HLD?

For the most part, yes; the upper classes had the most free time and money to patronise the baths and have orgies, however, it is my understanding that these sexual attitudes were also present in the lower classes, although the behaviour was less hedonistic. Part of Roman sexual attitudes goes back to power; a plebian may be lower down on the social ladder, but they are still higher up than slaves.

[fable]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
For the most part, yes; the upper classes had the most free time and money to patronise the baths and have orgies, however, it is my understanding that these sexual attitudes were also present in the lower classes, although the behaviour was less hedonistic. Part of Roman sexual attitudes goes back to power; a plebian may be lower down on the social ladder, but they are still higher up than slaves.

I haven't encountered this interpretation before of Roman sexual attitudes strictly as power, so please don't take my questioning as a heated debate; I'm genuinely interested in the source for this. Can you provide any suggested reading material that makes this point in a convincing and well-researched manner?

[HighLordDave]

I think I saw this on The History of Sex on The History Channel. I'll try and dig up some more for you later today.

[frogus]

Homosexual marriages:

Of course, no argument here I don't think.

Homosexual adoption:

In the case of homosexual adoption, there are a couple of things beng argued - Whether having homosexual parents encourages any negative traits in children, and whether having two parents of the same gender encourages any negative traits.

I think that the first is pretty unconclusive, because of the lack of research on the subject due to stigma discouraging test-subjects from being survied. All my attempts to find research on the subject led to apologies saying 'unfortunately not much research has been done on the subject, but when it is it will probably discover either X or not-X'
I think that homosexual parents are probably more likely to have homosexual children, but that makes no odds to anything really.

The two parents of the same gender can sound like a bad thing, but I think that firstly, public acceptance of single parents makes non-acceptance of homosexual parents hypocritical.
Secondly, I think that, while there are important genetic 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits, the importance of traditional gender-characteristics which are taught to children by example is diminishing.
Really, in the present world, there is very little need for non-inherant differences between male and female, and it has been shown by years of gender-stereotyping that gender-roles do more harm than good.
So I think that if people are going to accept single parents and reject gender-sterotypes, then logic compels them to accept homosexual adoption as well.

It can only be a desire to preserve anachronistic gender-roles that would lead one not to accept homosexual adoption, IMO.

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by Littiz
You tract things as if they were different in nature, while their nature is common: uncertainty.
As I stated, even science needs belief. You two keep ignoring it , but still. Belief is just moved a little aside.
Science keeps proposing models and theories, which unfailingly change as soon as our sphere of perception slightly changes.
What about people who believed in the Science of their times?
And mostly, what about the role of doubts and intuitions, which science itself needs to live?

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you mean by that first sentence - could you rephrase it?
Yes science requires belief, but very little, and very reasonable belief - certainly less extreme than the belief that personal experience and 'common sense' make a sound basis for passing judgement on issues as general as this.


Yes science accepts that it could be wrong, and that it doesn't provide immmutable truths (for ever and ever, amen ),
but that shouldn't lead to the belief that if science says something it should be taken as false - could be wrong doesn't mean is wrong.
And this isn't an academic question - unless we've got good reason to prevent homo-adoption, we're denying homosexuals a fundamental right.
Since science is the only universal , objective system by which we can judge this issue (do you agree, or is there some other such system?), we should act accordingly and allow homo-adoption.

Let's assume (for a moment) that the cited studies are unfaulty. I repeat myself, I don't judge the results. If you hit with your fist 100 kids, and then you prove me that they still grow as honest and generally good people, I still blame you for your action.
With the proper proportions, it's just what you perceive as "blamable", and what not.

I think I see what you mean - even if it causes no long-term harm, it still causes short term harm, ie. the lack of a father/mother figure. If I'm wrong (again ), please tell me how - this is important.
But I don't think it's logical to supose it causes short term harm - since the part of homosexual parenting you say is harmful is a fundamental feature of that kind of parenting (ie. the 'short term' harm is a constant in the child's upbringing), this would be reflected in the long term results. How could constant harm to the child over a period of probably 18 years not produce measurable long term damage?
As it is, implying that homosexual parenting is like child abuse is offensive. Please think of a different analogy.

And why would you not judge based on results? Why condem homosexual parenting, if the child is reared as well as by heterosexuals? Why call an action 'wrong' if it results in no harm to anybody?

Again, I know that such studies are "as correct as currently possible". Again, I know that such studies are "as correct as currently possible".
But this "implication" of course, is another assumption.
I know it sounds like "forced" skepticism, but I only generalize the historical course of science.
First, different external reasons can be generated by a single aspect of the whole that we can't notice.
Then... I am a timid person and my first answer would be "no".
So in the opposite, NOT refusing the tests shows already a common behavior of the subjects.
Could similar "patterns", or similar processes' interactions in the mind lead to this? You don't know.
I can't provide better examples as I'm trying to talk about things currently out of our sphere of perception/calculability.
But the test is necessarily flawed. You're leaving out ALL the extremely timid, or the extremely scaried, or the extremely lazy! Many types won't be represented in the test.
Another example, won't the simple knowing of being tested influence the test?
You can never know if what you exclude is relevant: be the billions of individuals untested, the possible interactions, or whatever.
In truth, you don't even know what you are excluding, or which fonts of bias you are introducing.
They're only evident after you notice them.
And keep in mind that I'm not questioning its applicability to the majority of cases: it provides probably a currently "good enough" model for our purposes. As the "Mother Earth" model for gravity was enough for most uses, and still would be, if you think about it!!
(sorry for the out of topic once again, I'll stop now, positions seem clear)

But unless we exclude all lazy people, or timid people, or busy people or whatever, then that group is still being tested, thus we still have applicable data for that group. And of course tests are designed to not scare away timid people - the results from them are just as important as those from every other group, so the effort is made to include them.
As for lazy people - a lot of these tests are quite short. Have you ever taken part in a psychological test, for example an IQ test? Those only take about 20 minutes (depending on the test). A test of a persons identification of their sexual orietation is even shorter - "Do you identify yourself as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual?" or "On a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being entirely heterosexual, and 7 being entirely homosexual, where would you place yourself?". Crude examples, maybe, but they show my point.
And the essential point again - psychological hypotheses aren't founded on single test, or a few tests - they're founded on hundreds of tests. The idea that significant groups are left out of some tests is at least tenable, but for all of the tests?

If you think these tests are 'good enough' for most purposes, then why not in this case? Why do we need absolute proof before we allow homo-adoption?

EDIT - I'd still love to see your definition of reasonable doubt

@frogus - Hello, I was wondering when you'd join this debate. Interesting points - I agree, in general, except about increasing the odds of homosexual children (see several pages of me discussing this ad nauseum with Littiz).

[fable]

How would the absence of a male parental figure in the same-sex female household affect the childhood development of the male-as-nurturer image? How would the absence of a male parental figure in the same-sex male household affect the childhood development of the female-as-nurturer image?

[frogus]

How much use is a female-as-nurturer image if both your parents are men?


Seriously, a child cannot be expected to gain everything they need to believe from their parents' example.

How was I expected to recognise that black people could care for children too, when both my parents were white?

EDIT - Parents cannot be expected to teach children everything by being everything.

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by fable
How would the absence of a male parental figure in the same-sex female household affect the childhood development of the male-as-nurturer image? How would the absence of a male parental figure in the same-sex male household affect the childhood development of the female-as-nurturer image?

I don't know, but it probably depends on a few things. For the lesbian/gay family living in a vacuum with their child(ren) it might cause problems, but no family does.
Someone (Ysh, I think) mentioned that children seek important role models outisde the home, from an early age. This would seem to blunt (if not entirely negate) any deficiencies in same-sex parenting.
I'd stop any couple who would raise their children in isolation from external influences from doing so (if the choice were mine), regardless of their sexuality.

Also, as frogus mentioned, learned gender stereotypes are not necessarily a good thing.

Maybe CE can give more definite information.

[HighLordDave]

As an adopted child, it is my opinion that it is more valuable to be raised in a loving household of people who are "different" than to be raised in an orphanage or foster home. Right now, there are more children in need of adoption than there are people (single, hetero- or homosexual) willing to adopt.

Check out the latest picture of my family (from my brother's wedding last year): that's me, my dad, my sister-in-law, my brother, my sister and my mom. Should I have been withheld from being adopted because my adoptive parents were not asian? What is the difference between cultural, racial and gender stereotypes?

There are many outlets for children to learn what the roles of different people are. However, there are few opportunities for orphans to live with loving families. Remember, everyone who adopts a child wants that child. When my parents were looking to adopt, they went through the Holt Adoption Agency, which is a Catholic missionary service. In order to meet the agency's requirements, my parents needed to pass a background check, have a certain amount of money saved, pass a personality battery and the agency even checked to make sure they attended a church regularly. This is often the case with most adoptive parents; they spend a lot of time, energy and money making sure their children will have the best upbringing possible.

The same cannot be said for all biological parents. Anyone can sire or birth a child, but it takes a special person to be a parent. Some people see their children as burdens or mistakes instead of surprises or blessings, but in my experience, the vast majority of adoptive parents take the latter view (in fact, I don't know of any adopted children who are abused or neglected).

Would adopted children do better (materially and socially) in two-parent homes? Sure, but so would any child.

It is my opinion that any home with loving parents, no matter what their race, their sexual preference, their socio-economic class, their religion or any other factor is better than no home, and with the need for adoptive parents as glaring as it is, any arguments against homosexuals being able to adopt seem absolutely ridiculous to me.

[Littiz]

Originally posted by fable
It was the rising flames and several complaints in my PM box that brought on the response. I'd like to see such a thread as Lititz and you have described, though.

Really it's my way of debating, there's nothing personal, not even when I seem enflamed!
Sorry for any misunderderstanding, especially with Beowulf.
I know I say sometimes "strange" things, and I'm also probably ineffective in explaining them.
BTW this is one of the few places where I try this kind of debates at all, this proves my respect for any "contendent"

Will start a thread about hard determinism maybe tomorrow

@Beowulf: I have to delay the next answer

[fable]

Originally posted by frogus
Seriously, a child cannot be expected to gain everything they need to believe from their parents' example.

Yet unconscious images acquired in the first several years are the ones that arguably stay with us, and have a pronounced emotional impact throughout life. "Belief" as such is not an issue. These are pre-logic, directly emotional attachments. Both Freud and Jung may be passe to an extent, but I think their comments on this are still pretty relevant.

How was I expected to recognise that black people could care for children too, when both my parents were white?

You're looking at a later point in life. Perhaps I should have written infantile rather than childhood development, above.

Mind, I don't know that this *is* in fact important. My question was posed from the viewpoint of someone who once read Jung and his followers exhaustively, but later realized that many of his opinions were not scientifically borne out in later research. So I remain open to alternative views, here, if it can be shown that the absence of a female or male nurturer at that early point in life does not detrimentally affect the subsequent psychological development of the persion.

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by fable
No, Buck does, @CE. I'm merely a humble mouthpiece, not fit to grace the earth that his bemired but blessed shoes trod each day. More seriously, the subject was fine. It was the rising flames and several complaints in my PM box that brought on the response. I'd like to see such a thread as Lititz and you have described, though. I've learned quite a bit from reading the debate in this one. [/b]

I've just reviewed my posts in this thread, and, in retrospect I appreciate some of them were a bit ... smokey, so I apologise if anyone (especially Chanak or Littiz) took offence.

Gasp! fable learned something from this thread, which means he didn't already know it, which can only mean he's ... not omniscient!
My faith has been shaken ...... (*sob*)

@Littiz - no problem, this debate has been great fun No rush on the replies, either.
A hard determinism thread sounds like fun.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by fable
So I remain open to alternative views, here, if it can be shown that the absence of a female or male nurturer at that early point in life does not detrimentally affect the subsequent psychological development of the persion.

There are lots of children who grow up in single-parent homes and they are generally not any better or worse off than other kids who are raised by both parents (in a nuclear family or two-family situation). In most instances, these kids are raised by their mothers and have absentee fathers. The single parent is forced to perform both roles, but for gender-stereotypical roles, children will often look outside of their immediate household and to extended family or community groups for gender-specific role-models.